HC Deb 26 April 1951 vol 487 cc576-80
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper

I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, about the case of two men dismissed under the excuse of redundancies by a nationalised industry, British Overseas Airways Corporation. From all the evidence I have, I believe the real cause of the dismissal to be that they made contact with me as a Member of Parliament and gave me some evidence.

I wish to ask your advice as to whether or not a question of Privilege is involved here. It seems that an important question of principle is involved in any case. During the war, I recall, the House was rightly jealous of its privilege and zealous in exposing cases where any attempt was made to influence members of the Armed Forces or discourage them from writing to or seeing their Members of Parliament if there were personal matters or matters of national interest which they felt should be brought to the notice of their Members. Presumably it is no less important now that it should be widely known that public servants or employees of nationalised industries have an overriding right to bring matters to the attention of their Members of Parliament especially if matters of national interest, waste or inefficiancy are involved which cannot satisfactorily be dealt with through other channels.

The case on which I seek your guidance is, very briefly this. These two men were employed in the British Overseas Airways Corporation signals section. One joined after active service in the Royal Air Force as a member of an aircrew. The other had joined the Corporation much earlier and had risen to a responsible position. This man, in the course of his signals duties, realised the need for an international signals organisation to be formed for civil airline operators after the war. His proposals were later adopted, and International Aeradio Ltd. was formed. He was not asked to join the new organisation, but remained with British Overseas Airways Corporation while its signals organisation was gradually absorbed by International Aeradio Ltd. Eventually, this man and his ex-Royal Air Force colleague were dismissed as redundant while others with less experience were recruited by International Aeradio Ltd.

Earlier, these two men had disclosed to me what appeared to be irrefutable evidence that International Aeradio Ltd. was going the wrong way. The international aspect of International Aeradio Ltd. was being lost because those who had, by influence it seems, stepped into the top positions in International Aeradio Ltd. had not the experience and vision to carry through the original conception. Secondly, International Aeradio Ltd. had become an inefficient and badly controlled organisation, and had built up a bureaucratic rather than a competent service.

This information was given by me to the responsible Ministry, the Ministry of Civil Aviation. After an investigation by the Ministry had been carried out, the case made by these two men was admitted and proved, and changes in the organisation of International Aeradio Ltd. took place. During the investigation it appears to have become known to British Overseas Airways Corporation and International Aeradio Ltd. that it was the evidence of these two men which had caused the inquiry to be held. The effect of their exposure of these defects made to me, I believe, in the national interest cost these men their jobs.

This was caused by the fact that the Technical Director of British Overseas Airways Corporation, Sir Victor Tait, who was therefore, in effect, the employer of these two men, was also the Chairman of International Aeradio Ltd. He therefore had the power of life or death over the employment of these men in both British Overseas Airways Corporation and International Aeradio Ltd. As they had exposed the inefficiency of International Aeradio Ltd., which reflected also in some degree on the competence of the Chairman, these men have, in fact, been penalised.

I would ask you, Sir, if a prima facie case of Privilege is involved here, because I believe there are indications that this type of case is multiplying, that people employed in nationalised industries and Government organisations are being prevented, or discouraged, from giving information to hon. Members of the House which, rightly, they should receive—and without which hon. Members cannot fulfil their duties in protecting the public interest—because these employees are becoming more and more afraid of reprisals and of the risk of losing their jobs.

Although the incidents in this case have occurred over a protracted period, I have been making representations for some time now for these particular injustices to be put right. But I learned only yesterday from the Ministry of Civil Aviation that they hold out no hope of justice being done. I believe that it is only at this point that the Privilege of the House has been impugned. I have, therefore, raised the question of Privilege at the earliest opportunity by bringing it to your notice today, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but Privilege cannot extend to a case of that kind. This, no doubt, may be a very desirable matter to discuss in debate on, let us say, the Vote of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but no Parliamentary Privilege is actually involved therein. Supposing the hon. Member had been prevented from carrying out his Parliamentary duties in any way, then Privilege would have been affected, but that is not the case and therefore I must rule that there is no prima facie case of Privilege.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is this not one of the cases, of which we have had three or four in recent times, in which the House has been concerned with the relationship between members of the public or constituents who write to hon. Members in confidence about matters which they think important? Because the House has decided—admittedly by a narrow Vote—that matters of that kind are not to be sent in the ordinary way to the Committee of Privileges, is there any way in which the House might investigate this matter, which is of great public importance, so that the doubts about it may be cleared up one way or the other?

Mr. Speaker

I quite agree with the hon. Member about its not feeing a matter of Privilege—it is a matter for the Government—but an hon. Member can always put down a Motion for a Select Committee of Inquiry into the matter. That has been done within my knowledge in several cases of that kind. That seems to me, in a case like this, to be the proper course.

Mr. S. Silverman

Would it be in order then, Sir, for any hon. Member of the House to put down a Motion asking that this question be submitted either to a Select Committee of the House or to the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Speaker

Yes. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), or the hon. Member who raised the matter, or any other hon. Member is quite entitled to put down a Motion if he so wishes.

Mr. G. Cooper

Is it not the case, Sir, that unless we maintain the principle that hon. Members of the House can be approached without the person approaching the hon. Member risking some penalty, hon. Members will be prevented from doing their duty adequately because the information will not come to us as it should come?

Mr. Speaker

I am all for protecting the privileges of the House, but I do not want to extend them because they might lead us into trouble. Quite definitely, this is not a matter in which Privilege is affected.

Mr. Eden

To be quite clear on your Ruling, Sir, so that there is no misunderstanding, am I not right in thinking that while that is so, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper), would be perfectly within his rights in raising this matter not only on a Motion but also on the Adjournment or in a debate at any time?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Blackburn

May I ask, Sir, if your Ruling does not in any way conflict with the fact that it would be open to you to rule it as a breach of Privilege if it were ever understood by an employee of a nationalised industry that, as the result of his raising a complaint to a Member of Parliament he might thereby be dismissed? That would clearly be a breach of Privilege, would it not?

Mr. Speaker

That may be so, but this is not a matter of Privilege. That is my point.

Earl Winterton

Is not the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), falling into a very serious error in using the phrase that you could rule, Sir, that it was a question of Privilege? May I say, with respect, that you have no such power; you have only power to rule that there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Speaker

The noble Lord is correct. But I thought I short-circuited it by saying that there was not even a prima facie case.

Mr. G. Cooper

May I move, Sir, that this matter be the subject of an inquiry at this time and that it be brought before a Select Committee?

Mr. Speaker

I presume that the hon. Member will put a Motion down, and then the Government can consider it.

Mr. Blackburn

Further to the point raised by the noble Lord, and in view of the great importance of this subject, may I understand, Sir, that you have not ruled that you would decline to accept as a prima facie case for a breach of Privilege, if it so occurred, a case where an employee of a nationalised industry was informed that if he communicated with a Member of Parliament he would, as a result, be discharged?

Mr. Speaker

I think we are getting a little muddled, if I may say so. After all, in this case nothing concrete was brought to the Table—that so-and-so had been dismissed. It is somewhat hypothetical and I cannot accept that, even as a prima facie case.